When you die of a heart attack while in the process of letting cancer ravage your body, you'll still be happy to have in your possession that man card.

And, in actuality, it really doesn't have to be about the increased cancer rates and shit like that.

It really should be about the single most precious natural resource on the planet - clean water.

It takes approximately 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. That's ten ****ing tons. Think about that the next time you have a steak. Ten ****ing tons of water for one pound of beef.

But yet, it takes one gallon of water to produce one pound of cricket protein.

Global sustainability. With 7,000,000,000 people on the planet, it's downright selfish and morally corrupt to be eating a food source that requires ten ****ing tons of water to produce one pound of food.

I really have to question the veracity of your data. The average cow yields 568 lbs of beef. That is 1,420,000 gallons of water for each cow. That is $2130 spent on each cow. It wouldn't be economically feasible.

Exactly. It's why the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't consume beef. But your thought process comes about from your societal immersion in the land of milk and honey, where four door dualie pickup trucks and aircraft carriers are the accepted norm. Who gives a flying **** if we are sucking up all the worlds fresh water? We got mother ****ing hamburgers, yo!

Meat production requires so much water it's hard to comprehend. As the chart shows, a pound of potatoes takes 99.6% less water to produce than a pound of beef, and 97% less than a pound of chicken.

Earlier we said that going meatless makes a bigger impact than any other action you can take. Here's an example: If you gave up showering, you'd save less water than what's required to make a single pound of beef. Not beef for a whole year, just one miserable pound. A whole year's worth of showers takes about 5,200 gallons, but it takes 5,214 gallons to produce a single pound of beef.

The global water footprint of beef production in the period 1996-2005 was about 800 billion m3/yr, which was one third of the total water footprint of animal production in the world (all farm animals) (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010, 2012).

When a Prince talks farming, you listen. This is nothing new for the GRACE food program folks, but as the "water guy," that’s all I could think about shortly after reading Chris Hunt’s roundup (or "knowledge dump") of the speakers and themes from May’s Future of Food conference. The "Prince" in question is sadly not his Purple Majesty but rather, Charles, the Prince of Wales, who issued a stern warning –and in the process stirred up a long simmering debate among Americans – that resonated with me because of its virtual water conservation message: Beef production and consumption are water intensive and a drain on our world water supplies.

According to His Royal Highness:

In a country like the United States, a fifth of all your grain production is dependent upon irrigation. For every pound of beef produced in the industrial system, it takes two thousand gallons of water. That is a lot of water and there is plenty of evidence that the Earth cannot keep up with the demand.

Quite resounding, old chap! While it’s a well-established fact that meat production requires more water than fruits, vegetables or grains, an average water footprint of 2,000 gallons per pound of beef is enormous indeed. You might be wondering how the water footprint of meat – using Prince Charles’s statistic – compares to the water footprints of other agricultural products

Water required to produce one pound (1 lb.) of:
•Pork = 576 gallons of water
•Chicken = 468 gallons of water
•Soybeans = 206 gallons of water
•Wheat = 138 gallons of water
•Corn = 108 gallons of water

I'll try to squeeze some of the excess water into my bourbon, just so it doesn't go to waste, and that's a ****ing sacrifice; I hate tainting perfectly good liquor.

The things you do for the good of our planet and mankind, Deez.

I'm giving you a standing ovation. I had a good cry this morning when I woke up and found the woman was making a roast today. Such senseless indulgence in beef products always gets me right in the feels.

I'm giving you a standing ovation. I had a good cry this morning when I woke up and found the woman was making a roast today. Such senseless indulgence in beef products always gets me right in the feels.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you shed those tears over a rainwater reclamation barrel.

__________________
You ever notice how on stop lights, green means go, but on a banana it's the opposite? Yellow means "go ahead." Green means "slow down." And red means "Where the **** did you get that banana?"

I bought a grass-fed ribeye years ago at a farmer's market that tasted like someone rubbed my steak in a field... Mrs. FMB! and I ate out that night after cooking dinner.

Never again. Gimme grain-fed cows.

Just trying to help:

Quote:

Switching cows from grass to grain puts more money in the beef industry’s pockets and cheaper meat on the supermarket shelves. But at what price? The stomachs of cows are naturally pH neutral. A corn-based diet, however, creates an acidic environment that contributes to a host of health problems. Corn-fed cattle are prone to serious health conditions such as bloat, diarrhea, ulcers, liver disease, and a weakened immune system. To combat these health problems, cattle are continually fed antibiotics, which leads to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that increasingly render modern medicine ineffective.

Aside from posing the danger of E. coli, corn-fed beef contains far fewer nutrients than grass-fed beef. Prevention reports that a recent study by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found grass-fed beef to be significantly higher in calcium, magnesium, beta-carotene, and potassium than corn-fed beef. In addition:
◾Meat from grass-fed cattle is lower in both overall fat and artery-clogging saturated fat.
◾Grass-fed meat is higher in healthy omega-3 fats. Meat from feedlot animals has been found to contain only 15-50 percent as much omega-3s as meat from grass-fed cattle.
◾Meat from grass-fed livestock is four times higher in vitamin E.
◾Grass-fed meat is higher in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a nutrient associated with lower cancer risk.